Slashdot Mirror
10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College
CNN and other sources report that an attacker, now in custody, shot and killed a
reported ten people, and wounded another 20, at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, about three hours south of Portland, and described by CNN as "technically a gun-free zone." Students are being evacuated to a nearby fairgrounds, and local authorities advise anyone to avoid the area of the college. Wikipedia editors are also quickly compiling information about the attack. More news on the attack is still breaking; expect updates here.
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?
Frankly, college students are adults, they should be able to have guns on campus. Why not just make safe gun use and storage one of the first required classes? Rather than try and ban something that isn't going away, teach safe use and respect for guns and life.
Well, there are a lot of gun free / highly-regulated countries with far less gun crime than the US. Maybe you should dis-empower citizens from making bad decisions / accidents. Oh, well. Slashdot, the land of libertarians, out of my cold dead (more likely dead than most countries) hands. Just wait a few more years and school shootings will be as passe and hum drum as rockets being lobbed over the Gaza / Jerusalem border.
Bye!
Dan Hodges said it best:
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
again with the gun free zone myth.
again with the reminder that almost no place is actually chosen on that basis, but rather that almost all targets/locations are chosen on the basis of a personal connection between the shooter and the location or someone at that location (workplace/school, boss/collegue, ex-spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend/etc).
again, you wont care because facts aren't something youre interested in
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
A few? Dude have you looked at http://www.dayssincethelastmassshooting.com/history/
We haven't made it out of the double digits since 2014!
A mass shooting at a firing range?
You are full of shit.
Gun Free Zone means where the victims can't have guns.
It's why the Onion's Satire just reads like more sad news these days.
Year old, but continually appropriate:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well, in all fairness ... there are plenty of other countries that are gun-free and others that allow citizens to carry guns and in both cases there are far fewer gun-related deaths than in the US.
Methinks this has very little to do with gun laws (I'm not for or against them). Maybe the US has some sort of social/cultural problem.
Yes. The campuses — including this one, the public schools are all legally gun-free. A pop-tart eaten to the shape of a pistol is enough for a kid to be kicked out.
That cinema, where "a joker" killed 12 people — that movie theater was not closest to his house, but it was the only one within a 20-minute drive, that declared itself "gun-free".
In denial much?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The answer is less guns, not more.
A right to guns does not even make sense, civilians would stand no chance against the US military. Besides, if people didn't rise up after the snowden revelations and rampant corruption, it's unlikely they are going to.
NO, the answer is health care. Plenty of other countries have more guns per capita than the US and don't suffer these issues. You know why? Because people are looked after and get the help they need, rather than some nonsense ridiculous purely free market approach.
The fact that in almost all of these incidents the shooters had mental issues should give you morons some type of hint....now, are you going to take it?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I love when someone's sig so perfectly matches the content of their post.
The sad thing is there is no reasonable discussion or compromise on either side of gun control. The NRA is one of the largest lobbyists in Washington, but not everything they argue for is good, but they fight everything because the gun-control lobby also will give no ground.
So both sides dig their heals in and give nothing.
This is sad and a mistake. One common argument is the "gun show loophole". It is misnamed, because gun dealers have to do background checks, even at gun shows. All it means is that private citizens can buy and sell guns without background checks within the same state, yet they can do this inside or outside of a gun show.
The fear of all gun transfers being "background checked" and thus having documentation is that sooner or later the US Government will pull an Australia and seize guns, and having records will make that much easier. Right or wrong, that is the fear from gun freedom groups.
A compromise might be, "amending the constitution to make clear that the ownership and possession of guns by private citizens is a natural god given right that may only be taken away in individual cases by a court of law that rules someone mentally incompetent." In return, all gun transfers get a background check.
I'm sure some people on both sides would not like even that compromise, but it would be a start. Both sides have to give something, or nothing will happen. We don't live in a nation where one side gets everything and the other side goes home empty handed. Or perhaps we do which is why nothing changes.
---
The other issue is that the government doesn't do very much to show that it respects the rights of citizens. Everything about guns is always about more bans, more restrictions. Want to impress the gun freedom side? Perhaps repealing the 1986 ban on select-fire weapons, in return for required background checks on every transfer might be something. It would show a give and take on the issue and that citizens do have rights.
Another thing they could give would be national concealed/open carry laws, respecting the right of the population to be armed, but in return, require training and safely classes for all gun owners.
---
These are ideas and attempts to find a reasonable middle ground, to offer something to both sides and to do something that would actually fix the problem, rather than paper it over with "guns are evil/guns are wonderful" arguments which accomplish nothing.
Exercised restraint due to the large crowd.
This is a good point that gets overlooked a lot.
You'd be a complete fool to try and return fire against a target that you have not identified in a crowd. You're just as likely to add to the problem as to solve it, and even might end up being mistaken for the active shooter yourself.
I have many guns, I sometimes carry a gun (I have a CHL in Texas). I would never, ever, ever draw my gun and fire at someone unless I had a clear and open line of fire, I was 100% sure of my target, and I was directly saving lives by stopping someone who was clearly intent on killing innocent people.
If there are other people either in front of or behind him, around him, or I'm unsure of the situation, I would not draw and fire.
I'm both legally and morally responsible for every round I put downrange, I would never wish to place an innocent in harms way.
I own and carry guns responsibly, I am not "Rambo", and real life is NOT a movie.
You left out WHITE... Most of these idiots are white.
Actually, not. It turns out non-white, non-Asian, people are (currently in the US) more prone to mass murder, both offenders as a percentage of their population and as a victim-count per-capita of offender's group's population.
But their victims are more often also non-white, non-Asian, and the attacks generally "aren't news". (When was the last time you heard the national media do a big news event on a drive-by or other mass shooting in the poorer residential areas of Chicago, Springfield, New York City, Philadelphia, or DC?) It's another example of how black (or Chicano, etc.) lives DON'T matter - to the news media.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
Wrong. They are not allowed to carry on base. Weapons are locked away in storage. Soldiers on base are defenseless against these types of attacks, which is why they are so effective.
What about those taking places on military bases? Those are technically gun-filled zones.
Actually, they're not. Firearms are locked in the arms room unless training is taking place. All ammo is locked in a different area. Every round is accounted for.
You are also not allowed to have firearms on post for day to day things (personal), those have to be registered with post security.
13F20L7 Operation Iraqi Freedom 07-08 Balad/Taji
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
Yes, I do think that getting rid of the easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method of murder would result in lower murder rates.
Call me crazy...
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
here's the guy announcing the shooting...
(sorry for hijacking the thread)
The places with the highest rates of gun violence all have bans on guns.
What total nonsense. The country with the highest rate of gun deaths in the world is - according to wikipedia - Honduras. Up until 2007, carrying guns, concealed or otherwise, was completely legal in this country. Today it is still legal to purchase and own firearms. So, no ban.
Some others on the list have bans, but it's clear that there is no correlation between ownership rates, legal status, and death rates. So, banning guns doesn't stop people getting killed, and widespread gun ownership doesn't either. You can point to counterexamples in both cases. America has the highest rate of gun ownership, and while it doesn't lead the world in gun-related deaths (it's only at number thirteen, mainly behind fairly lawless countries I'd argue, but that's a tough call), it's certainly up there.
America does however lead the world in mass shootings - and that list doesn't even include school massacres (How is that even a thing? It's a serious question). Mass shootings are something different to regular gun violence. We're not talking about armed robberies, or criminals shooting each other down in the street. We are talking about crazy people. I don't think there's any reason to believe that America is home to more crazy people than anywhere else - I've been there plenty of times and Americans as a rule are polite, hospitable, pleasant and reasonable. It's a nice place.
So why do crazy people in America have such easy access to deadly weapons?